Rule changes for 2016 season

[Deleted member 6794]

The most important ones include moving the ball to the 25-yard line after a touchback on a kickoff as well as allowing teams to now designate a player on injured reserve "designated to return" retroactively.

http://jsonline.com/373225451.htm

 

[El Guapo]

It took me a while to find a site that actually listed all of the changes. Shockingly it was the NFL's website: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...asses-automatic-ejection-rule-for-2016-season

It looks like they passed the automatic ejection rule today as well.

As for the 25-yard line touchback rule, I guess I'm fine with it. However, I still think that if the league is really concerned about safety then they should just eliminate kickoffs all together. Otherwise, maybe give an incentive to kickers to boot it out of the endzone. The offense gets the ball on the 25 if they down it in the endzone. If the kicking team kicks it beyond the endzone, the offense starts on the 20.

I like the boomerang IR change. It would be good if it was limitless. Any player placed on IR can come back if healthy enough.

 

[adambr2]

I like the IR boomerang change as well, but I don't know if limitless would be a good thing. I think it would be heavily abused to expand rosters.

I'm not totally sure that 25 yard line touchbacks will actually cut down on kickoff returns. I think more teams might try to pin teams deep on kickoffs rather than kicking everything into the endzone.

 

[Robert Mason]

I like the IR boomerang change as well, but I don't know if limitless would be a good thing. I think it would be heavily abused to expand rosters.

I'm not totally sure that 25 yard line touchbacks will actually cut down on kickoff returns. I think more teams might try to pin teams deep on kickoffs rather than kicking everything into the endzone.

Yes....just like punts to the 10 yard line.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I thought we had more discussion about the rule change concerning kickoffs and touchbacks, but I couldn't find the thread. I also remember in that discussion a lot of talk of how it would really change things on kickoffs. After the first year of the rule change, appears it hasn't really changed much.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...patterson-kickoff-rule-takes-fun-out-of-game/

 

[Dantés]

Moving forward, the rule change that absolutely needs to happen is that garbage rule about what happens when a fumble rolls out of the opponent's endzone. On what planet does it make ANY sense that a ball rolling out of the endzone on a fumble should lead to a change in possession? That is absolutely garbage. If ball is fumbled unrecovered out of the endzone, give the team who fumbled the ball at the one like PI in the endzone and go from there.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This won't be popular for those fans who think the game is already slow enough, but I really like what College Football has done with replaying called or uncalled personal fouls that involve targeting. Just like in college, I would also like to see players tossed from the game if its deemed intentional.

 

[Half Empty]

Moving forward, the rule change that absolutely needs to happen is that garbage rule about what happens when a fumble rolls out of the opponent's endzone. On what planet does it make ANY sense that a ball rolling out of the endzone on a fumble should lead to a change in possession? That is absolutely garbage. If ball is fumbled unrecovered out of the endzone, give the team who fumbled the ball at the one like PI in the endzone and go from there.

You had me thinking until the end. In giving the O the ball close in after a PI, who screwed up, and who benefited? The D screwed up, the O was rewarded. In the fumble example, the O screwed up, probably because the D went after the ball, and you're thinking the O should benefit? Don't see it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You had me thinking until the end. In giving the O the ball close in after a PI, who screwed up, and who benefited? The D screwed up, the O was rewarded. In the fumble example, the O screwed up, probably because the D went after the ball, and you're thinking the O should benefit? Don't see it.

I think the logic behind changing the rule, at least in my mind, is if the offense fumbles the ball out of bounds at the opponents 1 yard line (or anywhere other than the endzone), the offense gets the ball back at the spot it went out of bounds. Why should fumbling the ball out of the endzone be treated any different? Put the ball back at the 20, if you see fit. But why over reward the defense, who did not recover the ball?

Personally, I think a PI interference at the spot of the penalty (or the 1 if it was in the EZ) is a crazy penalty enforcement as well, but that is a whole other topic that we have beat to death elsewhere.

 

[Dantés]

You had me thinking until the end. In giving the O the ball close in after a PI, who screwed up, and who benefited? The D screwed up, the O was rewarded. In the fumble example, the O screwed up, probably because the D went after the ball, and you're thinking the O should benefit? Don't see it.

If the defense can't recover the fumble before it goes out of bounds, it should remain with the offense. That's the rule literally everywhere else on the field. If the ball rolls out at the 1 inch line, it's the offense's at the 1 inch line. If it rolls out an inch further, how does it make sense then for it to go to the defense on their own 20? You can say the offense screwed up by fumbling and therefore shouldn't benefit, but the defense also screwed up by allowing the offense to actually be that deep in their own end that a fumble could be rolling out of the endzone. Basically, you're rewarding (massively, no less) the defense for not doing a good job but happening to get really lucky. If you wanted to compromise and give it to the offense at the 20 going in, that's fine. But the change of possession is totally ludicrous.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

To even further tilt the unfairness of the rule, the defense is rewarded the ball at the 20. So possession + 20 yards!

 

[swhitset]

To even further tilt the unfairness of the rule, the defense is rewarded the ball at the 20. So possession + 20 yards!

I agree that it doesn't really make a lot of sense.... but I like it lol. It's one of those quirky rules that make the game interesting.

 

[Passepartout]

Really do not like the extra point thing at 15 yard line. As really Goodell IMHO is ruining the game of football.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I agree that it doesn't really make a lot of sense.... but I like it lol. It's one of those quirky rules that make the game interesting.

Well if quirky is what you want, then instead of the 20, give the defense the option of taking the ball there or a free drop kick FG attempt from the 40 LOL

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Really do not like the extra point thing at 15 yard line. As really Goodell IMHO is ruining the game of football.

I don't mind that so much, its made me actually watch the extra point attempts. I think it would add something to give the team the option of kicking for a 2 point conversion from 50 yards out. Not sure how many teams would try it, but could add even more excitement.

 

[swhitset]

I don't mind that so much, its made me actually watch the extra point attempts. I think it would add something to give the team the option of kicking for a 2 point conversion from 50 yards out. Not sure how many teams would try it, but could add even more excitement.

depending on the score .... that would definitely make the ends of games very interesting

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

depending on the score .... that would definitely make the ends of games very interesting

Might put a bigger premium on having a solid FG kicker. In a must score 2 points situation, I think I would trot Mason out there to attempt the 50 yarder. He has a career 52% average on 50+ yards attempted, so even a higher accuracy right at 50 I would assume. The Packers were right around the league average of 50% (2-4) last year on a "normal" 2 point conversions.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

This won't be popular for those fans who think the game is already slow enough, but I really like what College Football has done with replaying called or uncalled personal fouls that involve targeting. Just like in college, I would also like to see players tossed from the game if its deemed intentional.

That would result in too many judgment calls for me to like it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That would result in too many judgment calls for me to like it.

Not sure what you mean, isn't a referee's split second decision more of a judgement call than a reviewed play? Or are you talking about the ejection part of it? If that is the case, remove the words "deemed intentional" and just replace it with "was targeting to the head". While I do think players have slowly gotten away from that "rip his head off" mindset, there are some that still need to be reminded and an ejection along with the already present fine, would serve that purpose.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not sure what you mean, isn't a referee's split second decision more of a judgement call than a reviewed play? Or are you talking about the ejection part of it?

I was talking about the ejection part, not sure the league could come up with a distinct rule to consistently call it the same way.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I was talking about the ejection part, not sure the league could come up with a distinct rule to consistently call it the same way.

They started doing it in college football a few years ago and I have seen it used a number of times. Some were pretty cut and dry and others, as you said, definitely relied on judgement.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

They started doing it in college football a few years ago and I have seen it used a number of times. Some were pretty cut and dry and others, as you said, definitely relied on judgement.

I just have a hard time believing that a league impossible of determining valid catches is capable of implementing a distinct rule about intentional targeting.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I just have a hard time believing that a league impossible of determining valid catches is capable of implementing a distinct rule about intentional targeting.

LOL....you could be right.

 

[sschind]

Hey WIMM, you are a stat guru. Any stats regarding the number of touchbacks vs short kickoffs for this past season. I know there were a lot of people concerned that teams would kick it short and force a return thus having the opposite effect of moving the ball to the 25.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Hey WIMM, you are a stat guru. Any stats regarding the number of touchbacks vs short kickoffs for this past season. I know there were a lot of people concerned that teams would kick it short and force a return thus having the opposite effect of moving the ball to the 25.

I read something the other day that said that there really wasn't a noticeable difference in the numbers this year.